boxingary

Ivanisevic at the 2001 Wimby and Sampras at the 2002 USO
were both "under the radar", and both were ultimately able to
take advantage of that circumstance.

But Pete was attempting --- as Roger is now ---
to ADD TO an already gigantic legacy.
Goran, on the other hand, was trying to shake the
"best player never to win a Slam" label.

As I see it, Goran had a WHOLE LOT more pressure,
because being a "one-slam wonder", while still certain
to be derided by many fans and pundits, is far more
palatable than ending up 0-for-4 in Slam Finals...

Ivanisevic at the 2001 Wimby and Sampras at the 2002 USO
were both "under the radar", and both were ultimately able to
take advantage of that circumstance.

But Pete was attempting --- as Roger is now ---
to ADD TO an already gigantic legacy.
Goran, on the other hand, was trying to shake the
"best player never to win a Slam" label.

As I see it, Goran had a WHOLE LOT more pressure,
because being a "one-slam wonder", while still certain
to be derided by many fans and pundits, is far more
palatable than ending up 0-for-4 in Slam Finals...

"shouldn't we anoint Nikolai Davydenko the GOAT, given his winning record over Nadal?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad example, since they've never once met in a Slam.

It's Nadal's winning H2H versus Federer IN SLAMS that most people are focusing on.
As proof, consider that nobody is mentioning Murray as a GOAT candidate
despite his having a winning H2H versus Federer OVERALL...

For me, what separates the greatness of Federer from the Nadals and Samprases
of the world is the fact that IN ADDITION to Roger's 16 GS titles and 5 YEC,
he has had so many excrutiatingly close losses against fellow Top-Tenners:

Something else to whet the appetite for 2011:
Since Federer's 237-weeks-at-#1 streak was snapped,
ushering in The Nadal Era, a total of 9 Grand Slams have been held.
The new king has won 4...and the old king has won 4,
with an Argentinean interloper eking out the other one. Hmmmm.......

In the last 7 years of Wimbledon competition,
Roger has had to face the #2-ranked player in 5 of them,
and a #6-ranked Roddick in both of the other 2.
Still, he came within 2 points of going 7-for-7...

In the 8-year-span where Pete won 7,
he was straight-setted by Krajicek smack-dab in the middle,
and had three winning years where he never had to face
an opponent ranked in the Top 16 in the world.

"The following year, in a Herculean effort for the ages, he won four five-set matches to reach the semifinals"
----------------------------------
Some people would find it more of an INDICTMENT of Costa ---
that a (then) #9-ranked guy should NEED such a "Herculean effort"
to get past 4 opponents who were all ranked outside of the
Top 30 at the time.

"The following year, in a Herculean effort for the ages, he won four five-set matches to reach the semifinals"
----------------------------------
Some people would find it more of an INDICTMENT of Costa ---
that a (then) #9-ranked guy should NEED such a "Herculean effort"
to get past 4 opponents who were all ranked outside of the
Top 30 at the time.

"No one would have ever beaten Sampras in three straight
Slam finals, like Rafael Nadal has done to Federer. "

This occurred from the 2008 French through the 2009 Australian,
when Federer was 26/27 years old.

OK....let's look at the 1998 French through the 1999 Australian,
when Sampras was 26/27 years old:

French Open: was straight-setted in the 2nd round by 97th-ranked Ramon Delgado.

Wimbledon: won tournament. But consider --- none of Sampras'
7 opponents were ranked in the Top Sixteen in the world.
And Ivanisevic took Pete to the fifth set in the final, despite Goran
being less-than-fresh given his 15-13 fifth set semi-final escape
over Krajicek.

US Open: lost in 5 sets to Patrick Rafter in the semi-final,
despite being up 2 sets to 1.

Australian: did not play.

"Need more?"

Yes...........MUCH more. Because based on this, I honestly see
the Federer of 2008 FO - thru -2009 AO winning 4 out of 4
over the Sampras of 1998 FO - thru - 1999 AO.

"Do we take away Jimmy Connors’ great 1982 season and John McEnroe’s untouchable 1984 season because Bjorn Borg retired early?"
--------------------------------------------
And speaking of Borg, do we take away ALL SIX of his French Open titles because he never had to face EITHER Connors or McEnroe in ANY of them?

"This much is certain: Pistol Pete never would have faded away in the fifth set of a U.S. Open final against Juan Martin del Potro."
------------------------------------
That is POSSIBLE. We'll never know for sure.

What we DO know for sure is that Sampras DID fade away
in the fifth set of a U.S. Open against Jaime Yzaga and Petr Korda,
and was blown away in 3 sets by Richard Krajicek at Wimbledon
and a then-19-year-old Mark Phillippoussis at the Australian.
That, in the prime of his career, with 7 GS titles already under his
belt, he lost his #1 ranking to Thomas Muster, who never won a
match at Wimbledon in his entire career. Sampras at his absolute best
certainly would have been a threat to Roger. But the record clearly shows that there were numerous times, even in his absolute physical prime, that he was as beatable by the field as Nadal has been...

Mr. Perry did not make a "particularly cruel remark". He made a
career-arc comparison analogy that included a very famous quote
from Mr. Frazier that some people consider cruel and insensitive.
Many other people think that if this is the worst thing Frazier ever said about Ali, then Muhammad got off easy, since Frazier's young children were mercilessly taunted about their father looking like a gorilla after Ali's relentless schtick leading up to their third fight in Manila.

As for Federer-Nadal, isn't it fascinating that being an all-time great
as opposed to just an all-time clay-courter can come down to,
literally, 2 points? Nadal could just as easily be like Roddick,
a 3-time Wimbledon loser......and how much differently history would judge him if that were the case.